BP safety chief defends company's spill report

Ex-safety chief is grilled during Gulf disaster trial

By Harry R. Weber |
February 28, 2013

Mark Bly, BP Group Head of Safety and Operations, testifies before the National Academy of Engineering committee In Washington Sunday, Sept. 26, 2010. Experts probing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill exposed holes in BP's internal investigation as the company was questioned for the first time in public about its findings. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

NEW ORLEANS - BP's chief safety official at the time of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill faced intense questioning Thursday about critical omissions the British oil giant is alleged to have made in an internal report on the disaster.

Plaintiffs' attorneys and the Justice Department were trying to show at a civil trial in federal court in New Orleans that BP's report was designed to shield it from having to fork over billions of dollars more in damages and fines.

Specifically, if a court finds that BP acted with gross negligence in connection with the disaster, the company potentially would face maximum fines available under the Clean Water Act.

Mark Bly, who was promoted to an executive management position at BP after the company issued its spill report, said BP deviated from its own policy on responding to accidents by not determining how management contributed to the Macondo well blowout and Deepwater Horizon explosion.

"We got an exception from it," Bly said of the policy.

On cross-examination, Bly said the exception was appropriate under the circumstances.

Bly said he and former BP CEO Tony Hayward decided on the scope of the investigation days after the April 20, 2010, disaster off Louisiana.

Bly told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier that he could have gone further in the probe, but there were limitations in terms of availability of witnesses and information. Bly said that, among other things, the probe didn't analyze the possibility that cost-cutting contributed to the blast. He said it was decided to limit the probe to operational causes, rather than systemic causes, even though BP policy at the time required both factors to be considered.

"We considered all the information available," Bly said.

Bly's testimony highlighted the fourth day of the trial. No testimony is scheduled for Friday.

Justice Department lawyer Mike Underhill asked Bly about a certain call between a BP well-site leader on the rig and a BP manager on shore, regarding a pressure test on the well. Bly said his report didn't mention the call, though a presidential commission that investigated the spill determined that the call in question had been made.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Justice Department have asserted the call an hour before the blast concerned anomalies in the pressure test, which was intended to assess the integrity of cement at the bottom of the well.

Under questioning by a BP lawyer, Bly said he was generally aware of the call because of notes from others on the investigation team. He said they would be in a better position to address the call's specifics.

BP has admitted that it misinterpreted the test as successful and moved forward with procedures related to abandoning the well temporarily. That included removing heavy drilling mud from the well, which let gas flow up because a plug at the bottom wasn't holding.

Bly acknowledged that he was in charge of BP's global safety operation at the time of the disaster and that his company has pleaded guilty to causing the deaths of 11 workers on the rig. But even though his probe didn't look at management causes, he defended management's actions.

"Obviously there was a terrible tragedy. I completely see that," Bly testified. "But that doesn't mean the management system we were using was an absolute failure."

Asked by BP lawyer Hariklia Karis about the quality of his work on the company's internal spill probe, Bly said: "I'm proud. I believe the team is proud, as well."

BP owned the well that blew out a mile beneath the Gulf surface and was leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig from Swiss drilling contractor Transocean. The resulting oil spill was the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.

The trial combines scores of legal actions by companies, governments and individuals involved in the Macondo project or that suffered in the aftermath of the disaster. Unless a settlement, which is still possible, changes the schedule, the trial is set to resume Monday.

During the first phase of the trial, expected to last three months, Barbier will hear evidence on causes of the blowout and will determine how to allocate fault, which may or may not include percentages of blame. The second phase will address the amount of oil that spilled.